Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webber]

Yugoslavia: ~500 lives.

Genocide denial?

What.
Civilian casualties during the "Allied Force" operation according to Human Rights Watch.

[Sheb]

Given what the other side was doing at the time, 500 death seems like an okay price to stop that.

[DJ]

Thought you were saying that Milosevic was responsible for just 500 deaths.

[webber]

Given what the other side was doing at the time, 500 death seems like an okay price to stop that.

Death is never an okay price. By the way, this is

Civilian casualties during the "Allied Force" operation according to Human Rights Watch.

and you are mentioning the war in 1995. And AF took place in 1999.

So again, I am talking about ~500 innocent people killed by NATO bombings, NOT about all people lost during wars in this region.

[Sheb]

I tough you were talking about the NATO bombing of 1995, I didn't understood "Allied Force" was a operation name. Still, killing people to save more people is okay.

[scriver]

Not okey. Necessary evil.

[Christes]

Is just one civilian casualty unacceptable?  Because every war results in civilian casualties, and I think most people would agree that, say, World War II was justified.  (Granted - every side during that war intentionally targeted civilian populations, when they probably didn't need to)

[ChairmanPoo]

I think most people would agree that, say, World War II was justified

*snort*

[Urist Imiknorris]

Yay Godwin!

[ChairmanPoo]

Suddenly I wonder how many times has Godwin been invoked here so far...

[DJ]

I don't see a problem with drawing comparisons to Hitler when it's actually relevant.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Indeed, what started as a way to end constant and worthless "Appeal to Nazi" arguments has turned into a "DUR HUR HUR U MENTIONED HITLER I WIN ARGUMENT" button. That's not to say that the rejection of fallacious-Nazi related arguments has stopped, but that has become the minority.

World War II and everything about it was a very important part of history and had a huge role in defining the 20th century; in debates this should not be ignored out of fear of being "Godwin'd".

[SalmonGod]

I like how people say "World War II was justified" on the assumption that our thoughts will turn exclusively to the infallibly righteous Allied struggles, and completely ignore any other context of that conflict, which can easily be turned against the original point.  WWII is like pretty much every other conflict.  It was "justified" by the wrongdoing of the other side, who felt "justified" by the wrongdoing of another, who felt "justified" by the wrongdoing of yet another, and so on...  Soldiers killing civilians to prevent the killing of civilians to prevent the killing of civilians to prevent the killing of civilians. 

Where is the root justification?  Is there an unmoved mover in the chain of violent conflict through history?  All I see is absurdity.

Think about the war on terror, where the overwhelming majority of casualties inflicted by the "good guys" have been civilians.  What's the justification?  That we can't allow terrorists to continue targeting civilians, of course!

[Christes]

I said World War II, not Hitler.  Don't forget about the shit that Japan did in China, too.  Plus, it was just an example.  My point was that, while having zero tolerance of civilian casualties might be an logically consistent position, it results in a level of pacifism that most people would be uncomfortable with.

[Kogan Loloklam]

You know, from a conflictive point of view, Civilians are only innocent if they attempt to topple their government who is at war.
Governments derive their power from their citizens. Therefore every action a government takes is the responsibility of every individual citizen.
So there was no such thing as "Innocent Civilians". If there were, their government would have killed them.
It's the same argument about how youl have culpability if your governing body executes an innocent man.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

This is true from governments executing war in your name to letting the boy across the street burn an ant down. Know who is responsible for Gaddafi's abuses? Phoenicians. Yep, that's right. They are the fools who decided to colonize the place. If not for them, the area around Libya would have been tribal nomads. Actually that isn't true, since another people would have eventually caused the same problems probably with a similar result.

Sure, argue about the innocent lives who were lost, but the truth is when Mahdi Ziu bombed the gates of Katiba, the revolution wasn't going to end without a whole hell of a lot more than 200-700 lives lost. That was before Nato even got involved. The only difference was who would call them "innocents". Does it matter where the funding came from? Nope. Anarchy or collateral death. Those are the choices organized groups of humans face. We are who we are. Show me one society that has lasted more than a single generation that this hasn't been true for and I'll make you president of the world.


By the way, what is going on with Egypt's Junta?